Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

ByAuldheid

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.

http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss

Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.

There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections.  Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:

  • Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
  • Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
  • EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
  • The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.

There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:

The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.

In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.

No Independent Enquiry?

SR No

AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.

SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven.  There is an investigation going on

AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.

SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would   be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.

So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later. 

AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially  we need somebody from the outside  or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.

SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..

AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.

SR   No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.

Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred.  Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.

The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body?  Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?

AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?

SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition

AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?

SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,

AT Never?

It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.  

Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).

Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.

Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC  in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.

Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule

Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.

Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.

Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.

Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)

Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.

Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?

If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?

Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?

SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the   Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.

Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?

Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm   – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.

SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.

AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.

SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.

AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.

SR That is part of the process of governing football, we

AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.

SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.

AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free

SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.

AT This is extraordinary I say to you again  you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google  to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.

SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.

(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier,  Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)

 AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?

SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic)  of this year when the club entered administration.

AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.

SR We didn’t fail.

AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.

SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.

AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?

SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….

AT You need some new articles then don’t you?

SR Well I think the articles

AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.

SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.

AT ??  (Interrupted)

SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.

The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper  Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.

To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of  those  huge tax demands,  might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?

Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray  was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.

The Nature of EBTS.

AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?

SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing   taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.

Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.

The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.

(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under  the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE  of that documentation was  provided when requested.

This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.

How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?

 

What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?

It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)

However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)

From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?

By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.

Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.

It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-

(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;

(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.  

Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-

(i)            the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;

(ii)          the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;

(iv)       the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.

The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.

Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.

Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.

Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.

AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.

SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.

AT Sometimes

SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.

Mr Regan was not being accurate here.  The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?

AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?

SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.

AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.

ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results

  • The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
  • The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

  • there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
  • or
  • Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
  • This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
  • This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.

Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?

Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in

breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;

 

Outline of the Scheme

 

[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)

 

[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:

“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”

He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.

However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.

 

[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.

 

[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.

[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.

[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.

Auldheid  Feb 2015

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

5,190 Comments so far

CarlylePosted on5:11 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Many thanks, easyJambo. That’s an odd phrase: “… uncompleted secured loan of £3m to Rangers Football Club.” in the notes to the accounts, especially the word “uncompleted”. And of course to which entity is it referring … RIFC plc or TRFC ?

Perhaps another part of the various black holes referred to in recent times.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on5:14 pm - Mar 27, 2015


If the necessary investment is being quoted at lower and lower figures as each week passes does that mean that things are better then they thought pre EGM or that numbers are being pulled randomly from the ether? Perhaps they are coming to the view that contracts should be renewed so less will be require to revamp their squad or is it that they think heads zip up the back.

View Comment

andyPosted on5:29 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Feb 2014: King promises £30m

Nov 2014: King promises £16m

Dec 2014: King promises £8m

March 2015: King asks fans for money 😀

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on5:32 pm - Mar 27, 2015


jimmci says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:57 am

Yet Jackson still churns out this nonsense and expects us to believe this nonsense.
=====================================

I’m sure he doesn’t. He only expects his target audience to be taken in. And even among them there must be a number who don’t believe a word that they read.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:36 pm - Mar 27, 2015


bfbpuzzled says:
March 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm
=====================================================

It’s hard to explain – but it does what is required. It seems to be like soothing a baby, you stroll around gently, rocking them and talking in mellifluous tones – but the words you use don’t make any difference – you could be reading War & Peace or singing songs from the shows – as long as the rhythm is right and the tone is right they’ll stop crying and doze off eventually. Since the words don’t matter and the numbers are just words, then obviously the numbers don’t matter.

For someone who spends quite a lot of work time examining, questioning and testing numbers – it’s all very odd.

I assume it is also very odd for the SMSM who must apply similar professional rigour to words – provided they haven’t dozed off too.

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on6:19 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Once thing that strikes me about the Paul Murray “interview.” Since when did the broadcaset media uncritically run clips of a discussion between a football chairman an a paid PR man rather than demand they get to ask questions they want answered.

A new low for the media IMO.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:45 pm - Mar 27, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
March 27, 2015 at 4:25 pm
scapaflow says:
March 27, 2015 at 12:34 pm

castaway says:
March 27, 2015 at 11:46 am

This article from ten years ago shows the state that the English FA had got into.

Has the Blazer Brigade doomed football?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/jul/02/newsstory.sport

Things have changed since, as the question is now “Has the Sky TV deal doomed football?”
===============================================================================
The EPL TV money growth is a bubble that will burst at some point, IMO.

And this is where, IMO, there is still an opportunity to be exploited by Scottish football.

If the English TV money contracts collapsed / disappeared at the end of this season, what would happen ? Well all those grossly overpaid foreign footballers would be off to Spain/Italy/France/USA or wherever they get most bucks.

Likewise the best paid local talent, like Rooney, would be off like a flash to protect his global profile and endorsements – as well as salary expectations.

So e.g. the EPL could quickly collapse, with overstretched clubs going to the wall, and it could take many years for the fallout to stabilise.

If the TV money in Scottish football disappeared at the end of this season, what would happen ? I’m not sure if that would be a tipping point for some clubs, but the overall impact would – I think – be minimal when compared to England, IMO.

Scottish football still has the options of;
– ditch TV coverage altogether to get fans back on a Saturday at 3pm
– introduce their own TV coverage, [or outsourced]
– renegotiate better terms with Sky/BT/others, maybe after a season free of any TV coverage.

And as mentioned earlier, the SFA/SPFL and ultimately the clubs have vested interests and the ‘same people’ looking after their interests.
The SFA as at the end of 2013 had GBP 15.5M cash in the bank.
Maybe the SFA could overcome resistance to change by some clubs by providing assistance during any ‘transition period’, e.g. by giving cheap loans to those clubs in need ?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:52 pm - Mar 27, 2015


James Doleman says:
March 27, 2015 at 6:19 pm
Once thing that strikes me about the Paul Murray “interview.” Since when did the broadcaset media uncritically run clips of a discussion between a football chairman an a paid PR man rather than demand they get to ask questions they want answered.

A new low for the media IMO.
=====================================================

The TV equivalent of the print media’s ‘copy & paste’ job ?

A free infomercial !

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:57 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Thanks James Doleman, saw this link on your twitter feed. This guy seems to have swallowed a reality pill:

https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/same-crap-different-board/

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on8:06 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Barcabhoy,

Amidst what has been a lot of speculation on here recently and extended debates about what words are acceptable or not, I thought that was a very informative post. Interesting that you focussed on turnover as well; the point being that no matter how efficient or inefficient the business is, those are the maximum numbers they’re working with.

The comparison between Rangers and Celtic figures was certainly interesting, particularly the lack of difference in totals in the years where Rangers were in the Champions League compared to the chasm when Celtic were in the Champions League, but personally that’s where the interest ends for me. Competing with Celtic simply should not be Rangers’ aim, and the second the word “Celtic” is uttered in a press statement by Rangers officials these days you know they are not working efficiently. Rangers’ focus should be on cutting costs, increasing revenue, developing young players and selling them for a profit, while enjoying quality football as said youngsters progress through the ranks. Management should be 100% focussed on that. Do it and everything else would take care of itself. A bunch of Rangers youngsters they had brought through themselves playing good football would fill Ibrox every week no problem, and would win more new fans to the cause than sugar daddy one off investments, boardroom chaos and a win-at-all-costs mentality ever will.

I know it’s only a game based on a game, but back in the days when I had the free time to play Football Manager on my PC, I liked to take over a reasonably big well resourced club, survive on what they had in the existing squad and plough every last resource into recruiting the highest rated scouts and coaches available. Without fail I ended up winning a lot but crucially ending every season with far more money than I knew what to do with as net spend on players were massive profits. I’m not saying it’s that easy in real life, or that any team in Scotland could retain wonder kids long enough to benefit from them, but it’s still the only realistic plan for success in our (Scottish football) relatively impoverished circumstances my view.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:27 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
March 27, 2015 at 7:57 pm

Thanks James Doleman, saw this link on your twitter feed. This guy seems to have swallowed a reality pill:

https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/same-crap-different-board/
____________________________________________

King’s ‘gravy train’ granules are smelling alot more like ‘instant coffee’ to some of the more sentient bears. 😮

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on8:31 pm - Mar 27, 2015


http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8912-pm-2-football-number-one-investment
“We did say what the level of investment would probably be and we agree with Graham Wallace when he said there would probably have to be £20million put in over three years.
“We are still working through timescales for our investment and it will take that amount of money to return the club to a competitive level in the Premiership and in Europe.
“With regard to the phasing of that investment you have to separate it into short, medium and long-term investment and that is what we’re doing.

“To respect the processes of the SFA Dave will not be investing until we have him cleared by the SFA.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

IMO

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if this entire piece was prepared so that they could insert the last sentence

“To respect the processes of the SFA Dave will not be investing until we have him cleared by the SFA.“

Now
Since the SFA won`t have to check out King unless he is a prospective Director
And
He can`t be a prospective Director if the court rejects his application
Then
What this is really saying is this

If King doesn`t get court approval to be a Director he won`t be investing in the club

And
King intends to quote the support of the SFA as a FFP in his application to the court

If so
The SFA is about to issue a press release giving blanket approval as FPP to all current Directors plus King

And

Todays RIFC statement was contrived with the agreement of the SFA

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:39 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Watching Leinster v Glasgow at the moment.
Im sure the collective sponsors of both:
Bank of Ireland
QBE (also sponsors of England Rugby)
BT sport
are likely contributing to the two teams as much as the SPFL have managed for the whole fitba league.

On the front of the other dolts at the SFA have managed to contrive to play Qatar in a freindly BEFORE the runners up draw for the Euros: which will, even if we beat them 100-0, decrease our co-efficient in the draw and pit us against stronger opponents.

Get the two of them tae ❗ K

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on8:58 pm - Mar 27, 2015


what happened to brian kennedy and his quantum?
he offered but they didnae wantum?

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on9:07 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Carlyle says:

March 27, 2015 at 4:14 pm

You have a PM.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on9:20 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Possibly some serious ‘tells’ in that interview:

___________________________________________________

“The Ibrox interim chairman said the new board have had no discussions with tycoon Ashley or Sports Direct since they grabbed power at last month’s EGM.”

(… PMcG stated that they hadn’t made it past the security desk at SD offices, so that tallies.)

“Murray also revealed he and his new board were carrying out a review of all past deals between Rangers and Sports Direct.”

(…were trying our best to read the 120 day review, but struggling to understand it because they used the Irish spelling of ‘fecked’.
Now suspect that Mash was only ever keeping the lights on because of his lucrative merchandising deals. Deals which he still has, while the responsibility for keeping the lights on is now our problem. Oh dear. Release the squirrels!)

“He said they were in the process of “information gathering exercises”…

(…we’re trying to take in the scale of how bad things really are and wondering what the heck to do next? )

“but hope to “soon” sit down for talks with Ashley.”

(…hoping to sit down, but perfectly happy to kneel down.)

“However, Murray added the board now want to “explore our own funding” without needing Sports Direct.”

(… I feel a bit of Gloria Gaynor coming on… “Weren’t you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye…”)

“The former oldco direct also said there was no chance that Charles Green would return to the Rangers board.”

(…. we are pretty sure that was just playful Mike trying put the wind up us. (It worked… shhhh))

“He said in an interview with Rangers TV: “The view of the board right now is that we want to explore our own funding solution without the need go back to Sports Direct.”

(… Derek said SD wanted our kidneys as security for the second £5m, so we shot the messenger. But our bottoms are sore and our coffers are empty)

“We’ve had no discussions with Mike Ashley or Sports Direct so far but as we have said before we are happy to engage with them and feel we should do.”

(… Sorry is the hardest word! Don’t be like that Mike.)

“They are an 8% shareholder and have financial arrangements with the club. We need to have that conversation pretty soon but as yet we’ve had no discussions with them.”

(… Please Mike… answer the goddam phone, We need to talk about US!)

“Mike Ashley does have the right to nominate two board members, it would be to the main public company, the International Football Club, and he has got rights under the first £5m loan to do that.”

(…Mike has us hog tied over a barrel.)

“He’s showed no intention of doing it so far but he has the right to do it if he wants to and we’d have to address that if and when he chooses to do that.”

(…. he’s playing his banjo on the porch right now. We don’t know what he is planning to do next, though. )

“I think as Dave King was saying one of the big information gathering exercises was to look at the whole relationship between Sports Direct and the club.”

(…we’re displaying the first signs of Stockholm syndrome.)

“We haven’t finished that review yet and I think until we have done that and come to a conclusion regarding the terms of those arrangements it’s difficult to come to a final conclusion.

(…whatever Mike says, really. Turns out that’s what we wanted all along deep down.)

“We will be in a position fairly shortly to look at all of that and I think once we have done that we will sit down, hopefully with Sports Direct and Mike Ashley, and try and agree a way forward.

(… and Mike will still respect us in the morning. Definitely.)

“The Rangers board confirmed on Monday that it would not be continuing to drawdown of the second £5m tranche of the £10m loan from Sports Direct.”

(…even though we failed the duedil)

Murray also confirmed that he and the board are currently in talks to replace its Nomad in order that Rangers’ trading is resumed on the stock exchange.

(… and despite the fact that we blew the share listing)

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on9:31 pm - Mar 27, 2015


pau1mart1n says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:58 pm

what happened to brian kennedy and his quantum?
he offered but they didnae wantum?
________________________________________________–

Security required?

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:39 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Ryan ,

I don’t think there is any doubt that Rangers could “do a Hearts” potentially better than Hearts could “do a Hearts” . That would have taken talent at all levels of football management and courage by the executive directors. Unfortunately for Rangers you were saddled with an incompetent untalented manager who was in sync with Charles Greens board that filling their personal boots was priority #1

The fundamental problem now is that whilst the property assets were picked up cheaply, the running costs are crippling. Especially when onerous contracts are reputed to increase these costs significantly. I genuinely would have no problem if Celtic were in dire straights and the solution was to ditch Lennoxtown and return to Barrowfield. Johnstone , McGrain , Dalglish , Murdoch , McStay and Larsson never kicked a ball at Lennoxtown.Celtic can afford it therefore I support the investment .

Jardine , Cooper , Baxter , and Gascoigne never knew Auchenhowie existed when they played. It made no difference to their talent and no matter how well appointed the facilities it will never turn anyone at Rangers now into 10% of the players above.

Significant cutting of costs which never have and never will be affordable for Rangers is imperative. Paul Murray doesn’t have the track record of success to take the difficult but necessary decisions to rebuild Rangers appropriately . He’s too busy playing to the gallery by mouthing platitudes about “institution” and “great club”.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:49 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Resin

Love a “read between the lines”
One of your finest. And acutely observed.

View Comment

AquinasPosted on9:54 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Paul Murray, good lord, will no one ask him a question.
When ripping into past directors, no one pointed out he and DK were on the board who sold the club to Whyte, FFS! This guy is not right in the head!

View Comment

nawlitePosted on10:22 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Barca, Murray Park wouldn’t have helped Cooper anyway – remember it was us Bankies who brought him on! I still insist we saw the best of him.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on10:36 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
March 27, 2015 at 7:57 pm

Thanks James Doleman, saw this link on your twitter feed. This guy seems to have swallowed a reality pill:
=================================================
The link is to the McMurdo Minor fan club so I doubt reality pills are being prescribed….one part stands out….

“Given that many players are out of contract, a complete rebuild is required of the team. Again, a costly exercise for a cash-strapped board”

Well most of the players going out of contract are grossly overpaid and any competent manager should be able to replace them with better quality at lower wages.

Win win for dk/t3b you would have thought.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:46 pm - Mar 27, 2015


Aquinas says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:54 pm

Paul Murray, good lord, will no one ask him a question.
When ripping into past directors, no one pointed out he and DK were on the board who sold the club to Whyte, FFS!…
=============================
I think a perfectly reasonable question to ask Murray, on behalf of concerned TRFC fans could be ;

“Paul, you were a director for several years of the company which ran the club previously, 🙄 , and which is now in liquidation.
What did you learn from that experience ?”

[Cue: awkward silence and looking down at brogues ?]

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:40 pm - Mar 27, 2015


nawlite says:

March 27, 2015 at 10:22 pm

Barca, Murray Park wouldn’t have helped Cooper anyway – remember it was us Bankies who brought him on! I still insist we saw the best of him.
==================================
And I insist it was at Motherwell he was at his best.
We agree to differ I suppose.
At least we knew he wouldn’t be available when Wimbledon was on his actual great love was tennis, and he was some player at that and aw.
RIP Davie

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:14 am - Mar 28, 2015


Zilch says:
March 27, 2015 at 11:14 am
———-

I noticed the enthusiastic singing from the NI fans on the telly. Two of the standards from the Ibrox support were quite loud. Funnily enough, there was a professed supporter of the current Ibrox club on SSB calling up about the upcoming Gibraltar match but he was also at pains to express that he didn’t care about the national team. He also stated that the bulk of his fellow supporters were the same! Odd that this was ‘because he was a Rangers fan’. Or maybe not.

A few minutes later another caller presented himself as a ‘Rangers fan and Scotland supporter’, as did another. Curious.

@parttimerab I thought the piece was realistic in expectations towards the new board. I suppose since they are aiming for CL football sooner rather than later the Implication was they’d be looking further than modestly paid MP youth players. Or maybe not? Anyhoo, another curious split in the support.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:17 am - Mar 28, 2015


RyanGosling says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:06 pm
——–
Respect – I think most football fans would welcome a Rangers with those priorities. But sadly that seems unlikely given the baggage of the new board.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:33 am - Mar 28, 2015


Aquinas says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:54 pm

Paul Murray, good lord, will no one ask him a question.
When ripping into past directors, no one pointed out he and DK were on the board who sold the club to Whyte, FFS! This guy is not right in the head!

___________________________________________

To be fair to PM, he did at least raise vociferous objections against the sale to Whyte. This ultimately led to his resignation.
While I find alot of his sentiments unpalatable, I will not tar him with that particular brush.
The irony is, but for McCoist (hallowed be his name) utter ineptitude as a football manager, Whyte’s scheme could well have worked. He had the SFA in his pocket, RRM and WATP on side. This is what we must not forget.
The majority only actually turned on Whyte when the cash ran out.

Are you listening Dave K? Good!

Because any cash you put in now now is heading straight toward SD and Mash! And unlike Whyte – he doesn’t break laws. And can afford damn good lawyers. Stiffing creditors and soft loans is no longer an option for the Ibrox club. They are going to have to do it the hard way, same as everyone else, SFA complicity excepetd. You’ll get what you pay for, and pay what you owe.
We’ll wish them luck and see how they get on. So far its 2/10. Not trying hard enough.

View Comment

AquinasPosted on12:36 am - Mar 28, 2015


Here’s a thought I have ‘borrowed’ from Joe McHugh:

‘Should Mr King and Mr Murray both become directors it leaves the door open for HMRC to go after a phoenix company for the £20m unpaid at the time of liquidation as well as the ongoing appeal over the Big Tax Case.’

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:12 am - Mar 28, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm

Ryan ,
I don’t think there is any doubt that Rangers could “do a Hearts” potentially better than Hearts could “do a Hearts”

_______________________________________________________

I Disagree.
The thing that is stopping the Ibrox club doing a ‘Hearts’ is their fans.

Present company excepted Ryan. I feel for you. Look not behind thee Ryan & decent bears (genesis 19:17).

Its the absence of WATP that made Hearts succeed. Triumph over adversity. Acceptance of responsibility.
How many excuses did Hearts fans make for Vlad?
How many protest against relegation and points deductions?
How much railing against ‘sly kickers’?
If saving Hearts from liquidation turned Tynecastle into an Asda or a car park, how many Hearts fans would have stormed off?
Tynecastle remains with Hearts not because they are mystically entitled to it, but because they value it more than others, and were prepared to put together a package to outbid their nearest rivals. And it was close.

And they were prepared to ensure that it was those who valued the club, its history and its heritage that won creditors auctions. It was close.

The have derived dignity from ignomy, by their steadfast actions, vigilance and vicarious contrition on behalf of those who previously acted improperly, in their name.

Whereas TRFC has derived ignomy from dignity by their sense of entitlement, WATP attitude and apportionment of blame elsewhere, and abrogation for the consequences of the actions of those who – in their name- damaged the whole sport, not just the Ibrox club, after being cheered into the game by the Blue jerseyed masses.

Since Murray took over, decent folk behaving well at Ibrox – winning fairly – respecting oppponents, etc. well… these have been largely absent or at best silent.

That is the truth.

So – as my old gran used to say – hell mend yez.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:54 am - Mar 28, 2015


ianagain says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:49 pm

Resin

Love a “read between the lines”
One of your finest. And acutely observed.

_______________________________________

Why thank you sir.
I’d have gladly accepted ‘obtusely absurd’ from a person of your elevated esteem.
But ‘acutely observed’ is infinitely more honourable and – in any case- sounds exactly the same when pronounced in my accent.
A fact I that shall use to my advantage in all subsequent business dealings.
😀

View Comment

BorrowaTennerPosted on3:44 am - Mar 28, 2015


A thought coursing through my little brain since DCK started all the jetting in and out of Glasgow Airport was along the lines as follows.

Could he simply be another chancer looking for the opportunity to make a fast buck and then disappear over the horizon, in his case having recovered as much of his previous 20mil as he can get away with.

I truthfully believe it will end in disaster again, which as a lifelong Glaswegian ( non Rangers supporter) saddens me. These shysters must see it as one big never ending gravy train.

Other’s, with delusions of grandeur, simply don’t have the necessary acumen to make a success of it. There is no doubt the daily dross and bias from the SMS will in the long run, prove to have been no friend at all. If the Rangers fans continue to delude themselves with the rubbish printed and spoken, it will come to an end sooner than one might imagine.

Not being a Rangers fan, I wouldn’t (and couldn’t) do the job for them, however I do think that any future they might have is in the hands of the fans alone. However some cohesion, leadership, planning, thought, a bob or two (might come in handy), and form a ‘partnership’ with M.A. and who knows…..

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on4:19 am - Mar 28, 2015


Carlyle says:
March 27, 2015 at 4:14 pm
… They were two offshore companies (Gold Manson and Korissa Capital) plus Liberty Capital Markets …

Apologies if discussed already but; am I wrong in thinking that it was Korissa Capital (perhaps Orlit Enterprises?? The brain is playing funny pluggers now!)) that threatened to issue a winding up order (remember, that 1st one for the new company!) over an unpaid bill in connection with the IPO?

(ps, apologies to you eco – downright bad-mannered of me not to have replied by now but my time hasn’t been my own lately 🙁 I was very appreciative though and it re-ignited a dimmed candle. I’ve a TP Coogan book I need to dust off and leaf through as I’m sure that I read somewhere that the term was used by opposing ‘squads’.)

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on5:43 am - Mar 28, 2015


My bad, Orlit Enterprises – Singapore; Korissa Capital – Panama (with links to Tixway)

See what happens when I get a spare 3 minutes…! 😳 😕

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on5:56 am - Mar 28, 2015


6th March – Dave King said that if he wasn’t found to be “fit and proper” by the SFA, he’d still invest and still support the club.
27th March – Paul Murray said that Dave King will not invest unless he is found to be “fit and proper” by the SFA.

View Comment

FisianiPosted on7:41 am - Mar 28, 2015


Over a quarter million pounds 278,000 leaves the RIFC account each month to the Sevco Bermuda Triangle. March April and May stadium rental payments equal 834,000,000. Wonderful money for Chico et al. 10 months rent is 2,780,000.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:32 am - Mar 28, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm

Significant cutting of costs which never have and never will be affordable for Rangers is imperative. Paul Murray doesn’t have the track record of success to take the difficult but necessary decisions to rebuild Rangers appropriately . He’s too busy playing to the gallery by mouthing platitudes about “institution” and “great club”.
=========================================

I don’t get the Paul Murray thing, I really don’t. I have yet to see or find any evidence he has any sort of track record deserving of the business genius status the media have heaped on him. I find it sinister that in 2015 such deference still exists simply because a man is what is deemed to be a ‘traditional’ Rangers man.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:43 am - Mar 28, 2015


pau1mart1n says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:58 pm

what happened to brian kennedy and his quantum?
===========================================

Kennedy is a wealthy man. Fabulously wealthy compared to the vast majority of us. I’m stating the obvious, but his wealth wasn’t accumulated by chucking money down black holes!

What he has achieved through his Rangers links is he has gone from a relatively unknown to being treated with hushed dignity and respect. Billionaires whom Kennedy couldn’t hold a candle to can’t get that treatment because they are not associated with Rangers.

View Comment

BorrowaTennerPosted on9:14 am - Mar 28, 2015


sickofitall 5:56am.
===============

I’m sure you’re not surprised.

The ever reducing investment promise,

30million.

16milli.

8mil.

0m.

Every pot of gold you find, I’ll find a bigger pot and jet it in, promise! No!, hand on heart I really do, promise!

There shouldn’t be any problems though, he is after all a Real Rangers Man who can jet in at a moments notice, that is as long as SARS don’t confiscate his passport. In which case he won’t be jetting anywhere.

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on9:16 am - Mar 28, 2015


DK said “that’s where your……Brian Kennedy’s come in”.
Did BK say no thanks ?
Also, has anyone seen Kieron ?

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on9:33 am - Mar 28, 2015


RyanGosling says:
March 27, 2015 at 8:06 pm
___________________________________________________

Good post. All of my Gers supporting family and friends, every single one of them, wanted Rangers to go in a financially sustainable, youth orientated direction. I believe that the vast majority of fans would have accepted this too but have been poorly represented by the blowhards and loudmouths who speak for their club. A focus on the realities of the here and now is what’s required. I want to see a properly run club, free of the nonsense, competing in the SPFL. Perhaps not the general consensus on here but I find the daily Ibrox soap opera tedious and is given an importance it doesn’t warrant.

Your mention of Football manager raised a smile. I wasted too many hours on that bloody game! It affected my Uni work, employment, social life and relationships. Ridiculous, but fun, and I played it in the same way you did. Even to this day I’ll find myself thinking about Tonton Zola Moukoko or Cherno Samba. I don’t know if you’ve read ‘Football Manager Stole My Life’ but it’s a fun read. Apologies for OT FM nonsense.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:35 am - Mar 28, 2015


sickofitall says:
March 28, 2015 at 5:56 am
6th March – Dave King said that if he wasn’t found to be “fit and proper” by the SFA, he’d still invest and still support the club.
27th March – Paul Murray said that Dave King will not invest unless he is found to be “fit and proper” by the SFA.

—————————————————–

What would be proper IMO is for someone to fit their big foot up the a*** of CO and all others in the SFA and smsm and tell them to do something or report something other than P*** that is being spun just now. Who has a foot big enough who knows?

View Comment

timomousePosted on9:46 am - Mar 28, 2015


http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/114792298306/spfl-premiership-stress-testing-clubs-finances

Stress Testing the Premiership and thoughts on financial transparency

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on10:15 am - Mar 28, 2015


timomouse says:
March 28, 2015 at 9:46 am

http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/114792298306/spfl-premiership-stress-testing-clubs-finances

Stress Testing the Premiership and thoughts on financial transparency
====================================================
Very interesting but was this not something the football authorities undertook to establish and publish on their website?

Scottish Football needs this kind of transparency.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:29 am - Mar 28, 2015


sickofitall says:
March 28, 2015 at 5:56 am
6th March – Dave King said that if he wasn’t found to be “fit and proper” by the SFA, he’d still invest and still support the club.
27th March – Paul Murray said that Dave King will not invest unless he is found to be “fit and proper” by the SFA.
______________

Smells like an ultimatum being handed publicly to the SFA. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is some fear at Ibrox that the SFA have found a pair and will do their job properly, for once!

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:57 am - Mar 28, 2015


If one was not a FPP and had been found not to be, the dignified thing would be for a Club to refuse to take one’s money. In those circumstances it would be perhaps better not to offer it and put the Club into the position of having to refuse it. Or does the meaning of dignity change when money is involved?

View Comment

timomousePosted on11:35 am - Mar 28, 2015


Redlichtie

The SPFL’s “financial fair play” regulations are about ensuring everyone gets paid and that’s about it. Those figures were compiled from proper dossiers (Aberdeen, Celtic, Partick), media reports, companies house, fan blogs (Killie and St Johnstone) and then there are Accies and Ross County who publish nothing of any use. The SPFL doesn’t publish this and there is no requirement for clubs to. I’m sure none of that surprises anyone.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:51 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Timimous

A very useful contribution to understanding the madhouse that is the economics and finances of Scottish football.

Two points that I’d mention is that although the entry of TRFC into the top tier would increase Celtic’s domestic income the risks of losing European income rise if TRFC were to become really competitive for a CL place. Given the rewards one absence could cost Celtic more than they gain from TRFC ‘ S presence.

Which takes me nicely to my second point.

I strongly believe that the competition for CL money destroyed Rangers and damaged our game.

It must not be allowed to happen again and there is a way to meet your point that not a lot more income is needed to make most if not all clubs secure.

As I have suggested repeatedly ( and I’m doing it again) a percentage of the reward for CL Group qualification should be set aside as a solidarity payment to the other clubs.

Celtic are not going to spend CL money to chase more CL money through going into quater or semi final stages. Their opponents there have much more income to make the gap unbridgeable and the financial benefit could be negated by the wages needed to secure quater or semi final CL places.

So some of the CL money should be distributed by UEFA to the league to provide that extra bit of security on a more dependable basis than a cup run or getting more for TV rights.

After all if it was not for other clubs there would be no title winner and so no CL money to chase…..

How much more in shape of a solidarity payment would be needed for distribution to provide that additional needed security?

View Comment

Top Cat 1874Posted on2:00 pm - Mar 28, 2015


I see Nicky Law is in the DR today stating that TRFC is the most hated team in Scotland. Hard to argue against that, but do the players/Board ever pause to think why this is? Personally, I doubt it as the WATP mentality doesn’t allow any introversion. Still, must be a world record for a 3 year old club!

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:09 pm - Mar 28, 2015


I am not a fan of personalised number plates on cars but just saw
W4TP X is this an member of the people being open about it or a current member of the people doing some badge kissing…the car would be identified by my younger family members as of type favoured by neds.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on2:25 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Read Paul Murray’s interrogation by Mr Traynor from yesterday and I must say I am totally dismayed.

Since 2012 and all through the many and various boards whenever the fans got a bit too disgruntled they called for a change og regime. All the time unswervingly aiming to have RRM at the helm. It is they, the RRM who would undoubtedly take them to the promised land of SPFL Glory and Euro dominance. Well they are here. The RRM have taken up their seats at the helm and they look like and smells like all the other boards that have passed this way recently. That is the reason for my dismay. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide now. The fans have got what they demanded. RRM leading the march back to dominance.

So what if these guys just cannot deliver. Who if anyone can help them (MA Asside)? who do they balme, where do they march to show their ire? It looks to me that the very ones who will sink the ship are the same ones who did for their predecessor and the same ones the fans cried for relentlessly.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on2:33 pm - Mar 28, 2015


The big test of how far scottish football has improved on the park will be when we get our points back up to a level that brings the return of 2 clubs qualifying for the Champions league,a bit to go,but the way things are looking it’s achievable in 3 to 4 years alongside an improving national side,we are being side tracked too much with the ill’s of one club and not focusing on a promising future but it’s there to do.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on2:45 pm - Mar 28, 2015


God I despair when I hear or read the words “Ranger were relegated”. You all know the answer 🙄

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on3:27 pm - Mar 28, 2015


bfbpuzzled says:
March 28, 2015 at 2:09 pm

I am not a fan of personalised number plates on cars but just saw
W4TP X…
————————————
Consider the following that might be seen in a child’s schoolbook after the teacher has commented on the work:
2+4=7 X

Clearly, the wee boy or girl has made a proposal of what they consider to be factual, but the ‘X’ indicates that he or she is mistaken.

Clearly, then, the numberplate suggests that the ‘WATP’ mindset is fallacious. A worthwhile message to drive around the streets of our cities.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on3:31 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Top Cat 1874 says:
March 28, 2015 at 2:00 pm
I see Nicky Law is in the DR today stating that TRFC is the most hated team in Scotland.
,,,,,,,,,,,

Nope

Not the team or the fans

Just the culture

View Comment

Ron.an.MathPosted on3:46 pm - Mar 28, 2015


SSB last night . .
Keevins and mark burchill discussing Scotlands prospects took yet another opportunity to slate James McCarthy + Aidean McGeady . .Burchill was adamant that “if yer born in Scotland yer SCOTTISH !” Nods all around the studio . . THEN not 5 mins later keevins airs his cherished hope that his LONDON-BORN Bournemouth resident grandson grows up to represent SCOTLAND ! . I kid you not !
Do you HAVE to be a buffoon to guest on SSB ? 🙄

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:17 pm - Mar 28, 2015


It would be interesting to hear from the 5 thumbs downers re the finances in Scottish football if it was the idea of a solidarity payment from CL money,skimmed off what the CL qualifying team gets, that they disagree with.

View Comment

whispererPosted on4:18 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Had a quick read of P Murray’s interview … Says graham Wallace was right … 20M/3yrs …
So 10m for stadium repairs
5m to big Micky
And roughly 3.5m secco rentco

Pure Sorted !!!

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on4:35 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Ron.an.Math says:
March 28, 2015 at 3:46 pm
____________________________________

The eligibility for representing national teams seems a bit convoluted and a bit ridiculous. It’s always been open to a certain amount of manipulation. Puskas played over 80 games for Hungary but took Spanish nationality and then represented Spain in the 1962 world cup and De Stefano played for Argentina, Columbia and Spain. The Italians use the term ‘Oriundo’ to describe a foreigner with Italian ancestry and there is still some controversy over these players whenever they’re selected for the national team.

The home nations brought in a rule that if you had 5 years of education, under the age of 18, in the country then that made you eligible to play international football for them. I’m pretty sure Gordon Smith came up with that one when he was at the SFA! I think that’s why Raheem Sterling can play for England and Jordan Rhodes can play for Scotland. For me it would stop at your parents birthplace.

But for the life of me I can’t understand what makes Keevins eligible to comment on anything to do with football.

View Comment

Ron.an.MathPosted on5:24 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Incredibleadamspark
great point about keevins ! 😆
I have no “agenda” . . I’m a Scotland fan . .no “2nd” teams . .
We simply cant have it both ways . . “every boy born in scotland is exclusively scottish and every boy born elsewhere of scottish lineage is also exclusively scottish” just isnt tenable . .

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:50 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Veering slightly OT…

I’ve been offered freebie tickets to watch New York City FC play ‘soccer’ tonight. Not a big fan of the MLS, but keen to see the Yankees Stadium – and David Villa in action.

But there is a bit of relevance to the TRFC saga.
NYCFC is a brand new club, and tonight is its 3rd game in existence. It’s a joint venture between Man City & The Yankees.

It will be curious to see how the crowd interacts, and if they have any songs/chants yet. [Or if it will be like maybe a basketball game with chants of “offense”/ “defence”, etc.]

Wrt TRFC, as we have discussed many times before, they had the opportunity to start afresh in 2012, without all the negative baggage of RFC – but chose to pretend they are the same club. A missed opportunity.

IMO, if they had dropped all the nonsense, then over time I think the other clubs’ fans would have appreciated their efforts – and maybe even drop the inevitable, constant teasing of “you’re not Rangers anymore”.

TRFC could have chosen to become a real positive force and influence in Scottish football – in many ways.

Anyways, “Go City !” 😕

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:18 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 28, 2015 at 4:17 pm

It would be interesting to hear from the 5 thumbs downers re the finances in Scottish football if it was the idea of a solidarity payment from CL money,skimmed off what the CL qualifying team gets, that they disagree with.
————————————————————–
Perhaps the Russian ‘Troll Factories’ have arrived and are ‘putin’ their toe in the water ❗

An amazing article at: http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/27/interview-russian-troll-factory-employee/

http://www.rferl.org/content/how-to-guide-russian-trolling-trolls/26919999.html

I can’t help but think the Russkies probably got the idea from the SMSM in the first place as they are experts at deflection 😆

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:34 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Auldheid says:

March 28, 2015 at 4:17 pm (Edit)

It would be interesting to hear from the 5 thumbs downers re the finances in Scottish football if it was the idea of a solidarity payment from CL money,skimmed off what the CL qualifying team gets, that they disagree with.

Thumbs Up 17

Thumbs Down 17

=================
Aye very funny. 😀

View Comment

peterjungPosted on8:43 pm - Mar 28, 2015


I have a question. ..I hope someone can clarify. Now I have been on a long business trip and I have been out of the loop on this blog for a few days…currently posting from somewhere over the North East Pacific Ocean via the wonders of in plane wifi…
I digress. …. can someone please clarify the situation regarding Paul Murray’s eligibility to be the acting chairman….
Is it RIFC International or TRFC whatever that he is acting for?
I have read conflicting statements regarding the subject of his involvement in the previous entity and the current Phoenix enitity….can anyone clarify this?
As far as I understand Mr P Murray owns zero shares in RIFC International. ..now I presume this is no bar to becoming chairman….but in what capacity has he been able to attend previous shareholder meetings?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:01 pm - Mar 28, 2015


peterjung says: March 28, 2015 at 8:43 pm

….but in what capacity has he been able to attend previous shareholder meetings?
—————————-
Either as a prospective director at the EGM, or perhaps he holds a proxy, even for the holder of a single share, that allowed him to attend the AGM.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on9:09 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Whats the betting Ashley(Sarver) appears with an interesting proposition to fill the hole created by DK “delaying” his investment?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:11 pm - Mar 28, 2015


peterjung says: March 28, 2015 at 8:43 pm

Is it RIFC International or TRFC whatever that he is acting for?
I have read conflicting statements regarding the subject of his involvement in the previous entity and the current Phoenix enitity….can anyone clarify this?
—————————–
He is acting chairman of RIFC following the RIFC EGM. Being a director of that entity will allow him to be nominated as a director of any of the subsidiary companies.

He was sacked by Craig Whyte two weeks after the takeover in May 2011. The club was not liquidated until Oct 2012 (17 months later), so he does not fall foul of the “prohibited name” constraints that apply to King.

He will still have to satisfy the SFA’s FPP criteria with regard to his involvement as a director of an insolvent club in the previous five years, but his sacking at an early stage of Whyte’s period of governance, together with his involvement with the “independent board” which opposed Whyte, will probably see him defend that one without much difficulty.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:16 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Auldheid says:

March 28, 2015 at 8:34 pm

Auldheid says:

March 28, 2015 at 4:17 pm (Edit)

It would be interesting to hear from the 5 thumbs downers re the finances in Scottish football if it was the idea of a solidarity payment from CL money,skimmed off what the CL qualifying team gets, that they disagree with.

Thumbs Up 17

Thumbs Down 17

=================
Aye very funny. 😀
===========================

Auldheid

I think from memory the ‘Wells qualification for Europa brought some derisory amount down from EUFA to the SPL.
Your proposing an actual quantum from the participating clubs prize money on top. Correct?
Look Pretendygers wont have this, they’ve been starved way too long, put down etc.
I think they’d give it the thumbs down to be honest :mrgreen:

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:40 pm - Mar 28, 2015


I’m sure it has been asked before, but what is it that makes people say with such certainty that Sarver was a front for Ashley?

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on10:34 pm - Mar 28, 2015


RyanGosling says:

March 28, 2015 at 9:40 pm

I’m sure it has been asked before, but what is it that makes people say with such certainty that Sarver was a front for Ashley?
============
Ryan. I think it was because of a past working history. Don’t think there is any certainty. Usual, say it often enough it becomes fact.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:36 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Our friend Ryan has pointed out there isn’t much talk when results go a certain way so can I say well done Stuart McCall. In a matter of a week or two he has clearly made a mark on the team from Ibrox. FFS the reports are that even Mohsni is looking good.Just shows what you can do when someone has actually experienced the realities of the game as opposed to a clown with a blank cheque and a fat arse for target practise at training.

Looks like the new board may have made the right decision on the coaching front just in time.

I wonder now that some have seen the light how loud the calls will be for the head gardener to do the decent thing he should have done some time ago?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:42 pm - Mar 28, 2015


upthehoops says:
March 28, 2015 at 8:32 am
Barcabhoy says:
March 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm

Significant cutting of costs which never have and never will be affordable for Rangers is imperative. Paul Murray doesn’t have the track record of success to take the difficult but necessary decisions to rebuild Rangers appropriately . He’s too busy playing to the gallery by mouthing platitudes about “institution” and “great club”.
=========================================

I don’t get the Paul Murray thing, I really don’t. I have yet to see or find any evidence he has any sort of track record deserving of the business genius status the media have heaped on him. I find it sinister that in 2015 such deference still exists simply because a man is what is deemed to be a ‘traditional’ Rangers man.
=====================================================================
….Come on guys…cut the poor guy, aka “mini Murray” some slack…after all he is a CA…! 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 :mrgreen:

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:06 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Wottpi,

Interesting point – no offence intended to anyone, but having been out of touch with scores today I knew Rangers had won when I logged on here and saw no mention of the game.

I know this might attract some thumbs down and negative comments, but I’d ask everyone to take a minute and think about what I said. The same thing applied with the Hibs game. I’ve no doubt that if Hibs had won there would have been someone here posting a minute by minute commentary.

My point is that really these things are not what this site is here to observe and discuss. I understand the financial implications of certain Rangers results does indeed feed into what we regularly discuss, but when there is a minute by minute commentary of a Rangers loss and not a single comment on a Rangers win, it feeds the thought process that says this site is anti Rangers.

I know it’s not. But I am also approaching this debate from the side that would be upset by certain comments.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:25 pm - Mar 28, 2015


Some interesting comments from Chick Young (yes, Chick) on Off the Ball. Referring to not selling St Mirren to dodgy people he referenced the interest in St Mirren from Whyte & co, and the rumour that St Mirren was to be the vehicle to maintain Ibrox in the top league.

Quite an admission, if true, that thinking was already advanced that St Mirren could have been a Clydebank for the demised RFC.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on12:07 am - Mar 29, 2015


Danish
As always with the likes of Chicko but probo more the Keef the truth is under scrutiny at all times.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:35 am - Mar 29, 2015


yourhavingalaugh says:
March 29, 2015 at 12:07 am

As always with the likes of Chicko but probo more the Keef the truth is under scrutiny at all times.
——-

Haha, yes, quite. There are times, though, when Chick comes out with stuff that surprises you.

What would be interesting to hear is what he really thinks of his auld overlord, Jim Traynor. Very much the Stan Laurel to Traynor’s Oliver Hardy in that duo.

Btw, happy summertime clocks all! Up wae the larks but no sign of summer through the Danish rain 😮

View Comment

Comments are closed.